Update on story: ODNR removed lakes at Dillon State Park, Lake Hope State Park and Lake Loramie State park from among the algae-tainted lakes today negative tests for microcystin.
The state, however, added Mt. Gilead State Park after a bloom was sighted over the weekend.

Here's an April 2010 report from the Ohio Lake Erie Phosphorous Task Force that I should have referenced more prominently in the story: http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/lakeerie/ptaskforce/Task_Force_Final_Executive_Summary_April_2010.pdf
It's a long report, but the bottom line is that it concludes that agricultural runoff from fertilizers -- moreso than lawn chemicals or even animal waste -- is the primary driver for the phosphorous increases going into the western basin of Lake Erie.

For those who want to dig a little deeper, here's a power point presentation from Dave Baker regarding the phosphorous (both dissolved and in suspension) coming out of the Maumee and Sandusky river watersheds. http://www.wleb.org/publicoutreach/conference/3-1%20-%20Dave%20Baker%20-%20%20Lake%20Erie%20Phosphorus.pdf

Some pretty dense stuff, but maybe there's a few scientists (limnologists?) out there who can weigh in on this.

He pointed out that the "the Towpath Trail partnership Committee was aware of the problems at Harshaw and worked to avoid the property in its routing of the Towpath Trail. However, the alternative routing solutions along the Cuyahoga River encountered a number of other and even greater logistic difficulties as it tried to navigate over/under established rail tracks, a buried pipe that supplies oxygen that runs ArcelorMittal, a growing slag hill/mountain that would have ruined any visitor's experience, and a price tag that would have easily doubled the cost between the current terminus and Steelyard Commons."

I knew some of that as I was writing this story (and it was referred to in my previous story), but don't always provide that much context. In the print version, that can be a matter of lack of space, but we dont' have those kind of constraints online, of course.

Secondly, there is a dedicated, wide sidewalk areas on both the
replaced lower Harvard Avenue Bridge and the bridge over Big Creek on
Jennings Road, along with the dedicated bike lanes on Jennings.

Finally, the $2.5 million estimate for the bridge over the river would also include extending the towpath itself from its current terminus and include a re-worked trailhead and a pedestrian crossing signal at Harvard Avenue, Donovan said.

Anyway, I hope some of that detail and context helps answer some questions, but I'm sure the debate will continue the best plan.

I've received a few phone calls -- and now a few comments -- regarding the Phil Jones statements and why The Plain Dealer/cleveland.com hasn't written covered this "blockbuster" story out of the UK.

So I went and read the full BBC interview with Jones, in which he also says this: "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."

The full Q&A is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

So, the answer, perhaps unsatisfactory, to the question of why we didn't write a blockbuster story that a top climate scientist had bailed out was in part because that didn't happen. A full story on the matter would certainly have included both sides of his statements and would not likely have been as sensational as some might hope.

Regarding the various comments on our intent for writing the story, the answer is simple. It seemed interesting. Not groundbreaking, not anything new regarding the science, but a second straight survey to say that as a whole we're believing less that humans are causing any significant global warming.

This particular story did not try to address whether we, as a whole planet, will turn out to be blissfully right -- or miserably wrong.

I also found it really interesting (though perhaps a bit too flippant in the way I expressed it) that while fewer of us believe in human-caused GW, most of us also agree that the government should regulate CO2.

In other words, I think even some among what the survey calls the "dismissive" group may want to hedge their bet a bit and cut back on C02. As one commenter remarked, even people who don't want to believe in AGW, want to stop pollution.

But here's the thing: C02 is only a pollutant if we believe the science that says an accumulation of C02 (and, of course, other GHG like methane, water vapor) is contributing to a warming trend outside of the natural variability.

They're not talking about controlling ozone or smog or nitrous oxice or mercury emissions here -- they're talking about new regulations to limit and maybe even penalize industries for the release of carbon dioxide itself .

That's why the two answers in the survey don't immediately fit.

Yes, even someone dismissive of AGW can certainly favor not fouling the water, the sky and the land -- but it doesn't follow that they would want to regulate C02 if it is not accelerating climate change/global warming/global weather weirdness.

Don't know if that explanation will hurt or help the understanding, but it's nice to have this forum to go a little deeper into the topic -- one in which many of you are exceptionally well-researched.

Thanks for reading, everyone.
And thanks especially for the correction about methane. I've changed the sentence to read only that the water stinks because it did when I smelled it. A careless and ignorant error on my part to label the smell as 'methane.'
Nevertheless, I believe the story is a balanced look at the issue -- regardless of where you stand on it.

Hey everyone. Nothing brings out a spirited debate like mentioning weather and climate change in the same headline.

Couple of points:

theo44122 is right about one thing: I shouldn't have linked to the Sean Hannity video clip through Think Progress, but it's probably more an indication of laziness-by-google than telling of anyone's politics. I had heard about the comment, googled it and linked to the easiest site.
Probably should have just posted the youtube clip instead http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GvXX7PCkQ0&feature=player_embedded clip

Regarding uzcommensens remark about "increasing the public knowledge" -- That's really what the column was supposed to do. Earlier this week, the New York Times had run a front page story dealing with the same topic -- along with many others in light of the East Coast storms -- to it seemed a timely issue.

(The Times story : http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/science/earth/11climate.html)

That this issue brings out many comments -- wise or otherwise -- is undisputed. But to not give folks a chance to interact with the story, regardless of whether we agree or disagree, does not seem like a satisfactory answer either.

This seems to be one of those stories that relates to so many different aspects of our lives -- our view of war, our view of the land (the land ethic, as Aldo Leopold called it) and industry and even our view of government.

One point that should have been stronger in the story -- and is better explained in the map (there's a link to the pdf now in the story) -- is that the trail planners had intended to stay on the east side of the Cuyahoga River up until sometime last year when a deal fell through to cross ArcellorMittal and railroad land.

The reasons: Mostly because the trail would have to go over or under a functioning rail line (an expensive endeavor and entirely necessary as getting the OK for an at-grade crossing would be nearly impossible) and because the steel mill had recently built up a small mountain of slag that is also in the way.

Tim Donovan also said building the trail on that side of the river would have required building an elevated path -- which would have likely been beset by dust and odors coming from the industrial area below.

Finally, I've received several phone calls and e-mails from families whose relatives worked at Harshaw during those years and wanted more information on reparations for cancer cases.

Thanks (I think), someveracity -- and everyone else on the string for continuing to chew intelligently on all of this.

I may end up blogging about some or all of this, but here's some new/breaking tidbits in advance for those of you reading ahead...:

Today, a group of scientists sent an "open letter" to Congress asserting that "the content of the stolen emails from England’s University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has no bearing on scientists’ overall understanding that human activity is causing global warming."

You can read the entire letter here : http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/scientists-statement-on.pdf

Also: Michael Mann of Penn State (maybe the most prominent name linked to the emails) and several others spoke with journalists on a conference call this morning -- essentially saying the same thing.

Also: Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler and others are blogging prolifically about the intersection of science and politics at : http://volokh.com/category/climatechange/

Finally: Someone sent this Wall Street Journal column to me today through regular e-mail. The climate scientist who worked at CRU makes some of the same points (while arguably better written) as my column above. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB30001424052748704107104574571613215771336.html

A few remarks seem necessary regarding the flux towers in relation to the CRU e-mail mess.

For starters, the two stories are unrelated, at leaste in one sense.

Mine is a local story about how scientists here and elswhere are measuring how effective certain types of terrestrial ecosystems are at sequestering carbon. It's a story that I researched more than a month ago while up in Wisconsin (see the video) and was completed more than two weeks ago.

The other is an important, shocking and controversial story being written by other reporters at other publications. The Plain Dealer rarely has me writing stories beyond our region, though many of those stories do have national or international implications. (I won't be going to Copenhagen, for example, though I may write something about someone local who is attending).

On the other hand, they are -- of course -- very much related in that measuring the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere and a wetland or stand of trees may be interesting in and of itself -- but it gains real currency only in light of the larger climate change scenario.

Still, neither the PD nor cleveland.com has ignored the story. The print product ran the initial story by Andrew Revkin of the NYT as did cleveland.com http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2009/11/scientists_hacked_e-mails_on_c.html

Further, Kevin O'Brien, one of our editorial page writers, has weighed in on it: http://www.cleveland.com/obrien/index.ssf/2009/11/the_false_prophets_of_global_w.html

That said, I don't think we've heard the last from this and I think we're all more than keenly interested to see how this all plays out. I'm also looking for local angles to the story -- beyond just that many of us locally have an opinion on the matter.

Finally, in response to "theylie," the carbon flux tower in this story is near the Toledo Express Airport, but it is actually sited in a park, which I should have mentioned.

However, I think you missed the point entirely. It's not there to gather "clean data on air quality," but rather it is measuring how well the trees there take up and store the carbon.

Hey bobrasil,
What source are you using? I see the NWS page I cited earlier -- http://www.erh.noaa.gov/cle/climate/cle/records/cletop10snow.html -- lists a "trace" of snow for those four years (and a few others, which I should have mentioned in the story), but I don't see any Zeroes.
All of this is a moot point, of course, since I've been getting reports of snowfall from all over the place today!
(And I think we all knew it was coming. That's why I tried to write the story with that tension in mind: That its been nice so far, but not likely to last.)

Follow Us

cleveland.com is powered by Plain Dealer Publishing Co. and Northeast Ohio Media Group. All rights reserved (About Us).The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Northeast Ohio Media Group LLC.